Re: MD On Faith

From: Erin (macavity11@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Oct 30 2004 - 00:53:55 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD On Faith"

    Let me do my recap:
    I wasn't clear how you could dismiss things like ESP or let me add another example a high quality dream with the idea that things are not accepted by just saying they are experienced they have to be demonstrated.
    I had given the example of painting vs bare wall because I thought the value of the painting could be experienced but not sure about demonstrated. When it is the painting or the bare wall, I was trying to see whether you could demonstrate whether the painting had quality. Then it turned to comparing which had higher quality.
    Let me use an analogy of another thing that confuses me. I came in on this discussion with the not understanding why people argue there is no value in religion but then thinks Buddhism has value.
    As I already explained I think Buddhism is a religion, and the only explanation of why it isn't has been mu, which hasn't helped clear up my "emprical evidence" that it is.
    So hypothetically say the "picture" represents religion and I am trying to demonstrate that religion has value. Then the discussin turns to which "religion" has more value.
    To me a different question--if you accept one religion has value then you accept religion has value.
     
    I know that exchange between the scientist was just being silly, I was showing why I prefer to use the word experiences rather than empirical evidence (that is how I typically see the word, and so seeing it used so differently just seems to cause confusion and miscommunication with me but again science doesn't own the word so go for it I will just do the mental translation when I see you write it.)
     
    Erin
     
     

    Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
    Hi Erin,

    I don't want to leave you with the impression that I've dismissed
    your question; I'm just not sure what question you are talking about.

    Let me recap: The question of whether or not Quality exists is
    demonstrated affirmative any time any one makes a Quality judgment;
    it doesn't matter whether it's the wall-guy's decision or the
    painting-person's. So I thought that question was settled.

    But then comes the next question: Why do people sometimes disagree
    about the objects in which Quality resides? I suggested that this
    might be because they bring to their evaluations different bases of
    experience, but that these bases may be broadened (on both sides) by
    engaging in an honest exchange of ideas and experience, perhaps
    resulting in a closing of the gap between their quality judgements.

    The example you offer of Erin and the Scientist doesn't show an
    honest exchange of ideas and experiences, as neither person makes an
    attempt to share why they make the judgements they do.

    Anyway, sorry if I seemed overly sensitive. I have to be stingy with
    my time and energy, and I was getting the idea that you weren't
    spending as much energy reading my posts as I was in writing them.
    Just a cost-benefit analysis kinda thing...

    I've enjoyed our discussion very much.

    Best,
    Mark Steven Heyman (msh) 

    -- 
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is 
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
On 29 Oct 2004 at 13:21, Erin wrote:
But the example was just a bare wall and instead of answering my 
question theexample changeto having magnificent ripples and 
stainsthat made it 'found art"
Sorry if you felt that I dismissed your example, but by changing the 
example, didn't you dismiss my question.
Erin
Mark Steven Heyman wrote:
I think your frivolous dismissal of the wall being found art only 
further convinces me that we are not communicating.
Good luck in your exploration of Quality and the MOQ.
Best,
msh
On 29 Oct 2004 at 8:41, Erin wrote:
On 28 Oct 2004 at 13:10, Erin wrote:
msh says:
Well here's what I said:
"...people often fail to see the value in valuable things for a 
variety of reasons, one of the most common being discomfort with the 
unfamiliar. Though we often appear to be far apart in our value 
estimations, we need not be. If everyone's ground of experience was 
equally broad I'd expect the discrepancies to all but disappear. We 
share a common humanity, after all."
erin: True. But in case there was a hidden implication, i don't 
think this is the reason (i.e discomfort of the unfamiliar)I don't 
like c! alling my experiencing the value of a painting as 
empirical.For me itis more analgous to when something "new" 
doesn't seem as good as old, e.g., the trend of calling something you 
really like"bad". Don't forget thediscomfort with the old-----
Maybe this is the underlying reason why somebody doesn't like 
toadmit Buddhism is an old religion, discomfort with the idea that 
something oldmay be better than the new. 
msh: So one way to solve the problem might be to try to broaden our 
ground 
of experience. Maybe the person who likes the painting and the one 
who likes the wall should get together and talk it over. It may be 
that the wall guy sees walls as a kind of found art. Maybe he likes 
the texture, or values the way a certain crack ripples and spreads 
into a subtle off-color stain. Or the painting-person might point 
out some beautiful but subtle effect in the painting that the wall 
person had missed. In sharing, their bases of experience become 
broader, and their chance of quality agreement more likely.
erin: LOL the wall is found art, you crack me up. Are you a 
salesman? politician? diplomat? 
Okay my turn to be silly and I am not only going to embrace the new 
definition of empircal but also add some more to help unify science 
and the MoQ. 
Erin and her scientist friend went to the art museum.
Erin: I really like this painting.
Scientist: Ugghh it is awful. 
Erin: I hypothesize that this painting has high quality. I just 
did an experiment and the results were significant. Therefore I have 
just demonstrated empirical evidence that supports my hypothesis. 
Scientist: ?????
Erin: I have broadened the meaning of these terms.
Scientist: whatever it is still ugly
Erin: You have no hope of understanding the MOQ or more succinctly 
mu.
-- 
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutio! ns for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is 
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG  - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward  - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 31 2004 - 01:44:57 BST